Page 21 of 25 [ 397 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25  Next

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,373
Location: I'm right here

01 Aug 2021, 8:08 pm

If you don't have consent, you shouldn't assume you have consent. 8)

If you're not certain you have consent you might reasonably have to deal with being accused and charged of rape. This is reasonable.

Mens rea certainly should exist and be relevant and if the situation was a genuine, pure-hearted mistake than it might be fair to suggest having to face the accusation and trial might be sufficient to ensure the accused corrects their attitudes going forward. Bringing it to trial and acknowledging what actually occurred doesn't mean every single case where someone was raped will result in a guilty verdict, but that doesn't mean you don't try cases where someone was raped because the rapist insists they didn't know.

And yes, someone who rapes someone is a rapist even if they're not a convicted rapist. :wink:


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,666
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2021, 8:10 pm

Mikah wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
Assume nothing. On a farm, with sexy farmers, and then we went into the woods. Maybe it might seem more uncomfortable to ask some stranger if they are interested while they are alone in the middle of the woods, probably because you are adding extra pressure of the other person being at your mercy, but it really shouldn't change anything for assuming consent.


So just to confirm Bradleigh, you think a reasonable answer to that question is that it is more likely that someone would seek a sexual partner by going to a farm, then the woods rather than a nightclub AND this is also more likely than the activities of milking cows and fetching wood being performed in those locations.


It depends on a person's sexual orientation, surely.
Just ask "Catherine the Great". 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,373
Location: I'm right here

01 Aug 2021, 8:24 pm

Pepe wrote:
Just ask "Catherine the Great". 8)


Quote:
Legend has it Catherine was intimately involved with one of her prized stallions, with who she often spent a great deal of unsupervised time with. One evening, while attempting to have sexual intercourse with the stallion, the harness holding the horse broke, sending the beast crashing down on top of her. Is there any truth to this infamous story of bestiality?

None whatsoever.

If we are to believe another popular myth that surrounds her death, it wasn’t the horse that killed her but a collapsing toilet seat. Whilst this one is also just an absurd rumour, it lies ever so slightly nearer the truth. In reality, Catherine the Great died of a stroke and she was discovered collapsed on the floor in her washroom. She fell into a coma and died the next day whilst lying in her bed. The cause of death was confirmed by autopsy.


https://www.history.co.uk/articles/how- ... really-die

8)


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,609
Location: Brisbane, Australia

01 Aug 2021, 8:42 pm

Mikah wrote:
Bradleigh wrote:
Assume nothing. On a farm, with sexy farmers, and then we went into the woods. Maybe it might seem more uncomfortable to ask some stranger if they are interested while they are alone in the middle of the woods, probably because you are adding extra pressure of the other person being at your mercy, but it really shouldn't change anything for assuming consent.


So just to confirm Bradleigh, you think a reasonable answer to that question is that it is more likely that someone would seek a sexual partner by going to a farm, then the woods rather than a nightclub AND this is also more likely than the activities of milking cows and fetching wood being performed in those locations.

0 points. You are assigned to the same therapy group as funeralxempire.


No, my point was that I don't like the premise of the thought experiment, such that assumptions of what a person might be expecting in a location should actually matter in the topic of consent. The examples were kind of obvious otherwise and not worth serious answering in this discussion.

At best you are looking at in what situation should a person ask another person if they are interested. In a supermarket it probably be less creepy to ask if they would be interested in a date as to maybe lead somewhere, as a farm might have some level of farmer roleplay.

In your case it really has sounded like you want to believe that there are certain circumstances where a women should be less believed that she did not consent, or that a guy can just assume that there was consent so that he can claim that there was no "criminal intent" and so is innocent.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,036
Location: England

01 Aug 2021, 8:45 pm

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=398856&p=8832995#p8832995
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=398856&p=8833455#p8833455
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=398856&p=8833594#p8833594

uncommondenominator I think you've crossed that line from lively debate into derangement with your thinly veiled personal attacks and assertions about the character and "secret motivations" of anyone who dares question this sacred cow of a topic, barely veiled, if at all, using the generic YOU or they or "some people". If there were anything of value to your posts, I might tolerate it, but there isn't and there really hasn't been since you made a fool of yourself in the abortion thread, which is when your obsession with me started. I will be ignoring you from now on. In fact I'll block your posts, you can rant and rave to your heart's content and I won't ever see it.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,666
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2021, 8:48 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Just ask "Catherine the Great". 8)


Quote:
Legend has it Catherine was intimately involved with one of her prized stallions, with who she often spent a great deal of unsupervised time with. One evening, while attempting to have sexual intercourse with the stallion, the harness holding the horse broke, sending the beast crashing down on top of her. Is there any truth to this infamous story of bestiality?

None whatsoever.

If we are to believe another popular myth that surrounds her death, it wasn’t the horse that killed her but a collapsing toilet seat. Whilst this one is also just an absurd rumour, it lies ever so slightly nearer the truth. In reality, Catherine the Great died of a stroke and she was discovered collapsed on the floor in her washroom. She fell into a coma and died the next day whilst lying in her bed. The cause of death was confirmed by autopsy.


https://www.history.co.uk/articles/how- ... really-die

8)


That is not evidence that she "did not have sexual relations with that woman horse" at some time.
Reason/logic is not your strong point, remember. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,373
Location: I'm right here

01 Aug 2021, 8:54 pm

Pepe wrote:
Reason/logic is not your strong point, remember. 8)


Unintentional irony seems to be yours. :lol:

No, it doesn't prove she never f****d a horse, but no evidence exists to suggest that she did either. It's just an old slander against the German woman who took over Russia.


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


Last edited by funeralxempire on 01 Aug 2021, 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 2,036
Location: England

01 Aug 2021, 8:55 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
No, my point was that I don't like the premise of the thought experiment, such that assumptions of what a person might be expecting in a location should actually matter in the topic of consent. The examples were kind of obvious otherwise and not worth serious answering in this discussion.


I think you don't like the premise and didn't answer the questions because you're smart enough to see a few steps ahead in the argument, you might accidentally say something very similar to my position.

Bradleigh wrote:
In your case it really has sounded like you want to believe that there are certain circumstances where a women should be less believed that she did not consent


No, in these scenarios the woman is already believed fully. She did not consent, the court agrees. The question is whether a reasonable person might think she had consented. We can talk all day about enthusiastic active consent, but this is not widely practised for various reasons. Until it is written in stone, and people are thrown off buildings for neglecting to seek sufficient verbal consent how is a reasonable person to determine consent? This is the question.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,666
Location: Australia

01 Aug 2021, 8:59 pm

Mikah wrote:
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=398856&p=8832995#p8832995


Could you point out (cut&paste) where you think there was a veiled personal attack?
His posts are very long, and I may have missed them.

Quote:
https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=398856&p=8833455#p8833455
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=398856&p=8833594#p8833594

There is a pattern of gross generalisation/exaggeration/mind-reading, however.
They are very emotionalistic rather than rational, in makeup in addition. 8)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude. Hypnosis, psychosis. Tomarto, tomayto. There are *4* lights. Honey badger.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,


"A stranger is a friend gang-stalker you haven't met yet." Humour is not meant to be taken seriously, yet many pervert its intent.
Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


I luv KFC!


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,609
Location: Brisbane, Australia

01 Aug 2021, 10:16 pm

Mikah wrote:
I think you don't like the premise and didn't answer the questions because you're smart enough to see a few steps ahead in the argument, you might accidentally say something very similar to my position.


And what would that be? that one might think that a person going to a club might be more likely to be looking for sex than if they went to a farm? Congratulations, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure that out. The point discussed is that the "more likely" has nothing to do with giving consent to anyone.


Mikah wrote:
No, in these scenarios the woman is already believed fully. She did not consent, the court agrees. The question is whether a reasonable person might think she had consented. We can talk all day about enthusiastic active consent, but this is not widely practised for various reasons. Until it is written in stone, and people are thrown off buildings for neglecting to seek sufficient verbal consent how is a reasonable person to determine consent? This is the question.


Then, don't you think that people should try harder? I think you will find that this entire discussion has been on a difference between the right and left, and that the right is more likely to blame the victim, or just say no one is at fault, because there is a history of culture that takes a lack of refusal of consent as giving consent. The thing is that is changing, as much as it might have been normalised before it has been changing.

I am sure it is possible to still find judges, likely on the conservative side, that might say that a woman "dressing like a whore" is enough of a reason for the other party to think they are giving consent, and maybe doesn't understand that people can freeze up. But that really shouldn't decide if an attitude is right or wrong. And yet there is a very angry and "sad" response from certain people about these changing attitudes, that you can't get a girl drunk to manipulate her into saying yes, and criticisms against "she didn't say no" defences.

Screw it if some women say it is a turn off to be asked if they are down and only move forward from verbal affirmation. They too shouldn't get to decide if another woman was just asking for it if she was in a certain location, with a certain outfit and didn't fight hard enough. Make it part of sex-ed to teach everyone that explicit consent is needed, don't just let things continue by saying that sometimes people get raped but no one is at fault.

And the people that complain about those standards can just be sad.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

02 Aug 2021, 3:38 am

Bradleigh wrote:
Mikah wrote:
You keep avoiding the question of mens rea and falling back on the same one-liners. Do you think mens rea should not apply for sexual crimes?


Intention and awareness can always be a point in trying to prove guilt or innocence, but it should not be the entirety of deciding if a sexual crime happened. For instance, if a man thought that a 15 year old could give consent, would he have committed a crime if he slept with them?

The answer is a yes, because minors cannot give consent, even if some cultures might have said that they might.

Minors absolutely CAN and DO give consent. Don’t confuse what is legally ALLOWED and what is real-life, actually POSSIBLE. There is a difference.

I’m not advocating for underage sex. The purpose of age of consent laws is to assist parents in protecting their children from predators, especially those in positions of trust and authority. It is the domain of parents to say when they think their children are ready for sex, whether their children have to go to church, what moral codes they want to obligate their children to, and so forth. Because the decision of when to become sexually active is in the interest of parents, it becomes necessary to make and enforce laws that strip teenagers of their legal right to consent to sex. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether sex with older adults actually causes harm. Teenagers can enjoy sex just as much if not more so than adults. How old the partner is won’t be relevant.

Fun fact: I recently returned to full time status as a high school music teacher after being nearly a decade out of the loop. Over the course of getting caught up, a friend filled me in on some old acquaintances of mine. I knew about a friend who took a job in the extreme northern part of the state, but couldn’t figure out why he left the great gig he had. Turns out he was fired for dating a student. I heard another story about someone who’d been caught having sex with a student but who was still directing bands elsewhere. I asked why he didn’t end up in prison. Well…it was because the parents decided not to press charges. I heard another story about a band director who simply left a note of encouragement in a student’s instrument case. Nothing really scandalous about the note, but once the parents saw it they took it to the school district and had the teacher’s license revoked.

The point I’m making is that consent laws have nothing to do with young girls. It has everything to do with how much control and influence parents want over their children’s lives. You won’t go to prison by default for underaged sex. It all just depends on how much her parents hate you.

If minors cannot actually consent to anything, they cannot be held responsible for anything. A bullet fired from a gun is just as deadly in the hands of an 8 year old, an 18 year old, or an 80 year old.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

02 Aug 2021, 3:51 am

Bradleigh wrote:
Mikah wrote:
I think you don't like the premise and didn't answer the questions because you're smart enough to see a few steps ahead in the argument, you might accidentally say something very similar to my position.


And what would that be? that one might think that a person going to a club might be more likely to be looking for sex than if they went to a farm? Congratulations, it doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure that out. The point discussed is that the "more likely" has nothing to do with giving consent to anyone.


Mikah wrote:
No, in these scenarios the woman is already believed fully. She did not consent, the court agrees. The question is whether a reasonable person might think she had consented. We can talk all day about enthusiastic active consent, but this is not widely practised for various reasons. Until it is written in stone, and people are thrown off buildings for neglecting to seek sufficient verbal consent how is a reasonable person to determine consent? This is the question.


Then, don't you think that people should try harder? I think you will find that this entire discussion has been on a difference between the right and left, and that the right is more likely to blame the victim, or just say no one is at fault, because there is a history of culture that takes a lack of refusal of consent as giving consent. The thing is that is changing, as much as it might have been normalised before it has been changing.

I am sure it is possible to still find judges, likely on the conservative side, that might say that a woman "dressing like a whore" is enough of a reason for the other party to think they are giving consent, and maybe doesn't understand that people can freeze up. But that really shouldn't decide if an attitude is right or wrong. And yet there is a very angry and "sad" response from certain people about these changing attitudes, that you can't get a girl drunk to manipulate her into saying yes, and criticisms against "she didn't say no" defences.

Screw it if some women say it is a turn off to be asked if they are down and only move forward from verbal affirmation. They too shouldn't get to decide if another woman was just asking for it if she was in a certain location, with a certain outfit and didn't fight hard enough. Make it part of sex-ed to teach everyone that explicit consent is needed, don't just let things continue by saying that sometimes people get raped but no one is at fault.

And the people that complain about those standards can just be sad.

Or men and women with good sense can just go on having sex and ignore ridiculous, unreasonable standards. There is such a thing as living apart from or above the influence: men who make the choice not to force women, and women who think explicit consent who think men begging for sex are weak and stupid and beneath them.

If a man or woman says “I love you,” they will be physically attracted to you. If any person wants to express themselves physically, they can always move slowly enough to both show their intentions and give the other person an out. If two people have hands under the other person’s clothes and clothes are coming off, consent is pretty much given.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,609
Location: Brisbane, Australia

02 Aug 2021, 4:39 am

AngelRho wrote:
Minors absolutely CAN and DO give consent. Don’t confuse what is legally ALLOWED and what is real-life, actually POSSIBLE. There is a difference.


I'm sorry, but this is a really regressive frame of mind. Minors cannot give consent to have sex with adults. Perhaps a minor might think that they can, but the circumstance is too open to power imbalance and manipulation. And yet, I might be willing to give that a minor can consent to having sex with another minor, of course within certain bounds, such as an 17 year old should not be with an 11 year old.

But that also has absolutely nothing to do with what their parent thinks, not between a minor with an adult, and not between two minors of the same level of maturity. Of course, a parent always could set rules that as long as they live in the house they not do things, but the idea of parents being the arbiters of consent of their child, just feels gross. I also say this in regards to the likes of sex education, that the hard boiled choice to deny it with only abstinence only, really doesn't do any favours.

Children (teenagers) are not just extensions of their parents will, that get to decide whether they consent, or the other things you said about an enforced moral code and forcing them to go to church. Especially in regards to some churches can be pretty much torture/child abuse, and I would consider it such where a parent might decide to send their gay kid to a conversion camp, because the parent decides if their son gets to have a boyfriend.

And again, to repeat, a child cannot consent to have sex with an adult, regardless if their parents agreed to it.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,609
Location: Brisbane, Australia

02 Aug 2021, 4:56 am

AngelRho wrote:
Or men and women with good sense can just go on having sex and ignore ridiculous, unreasonable standards. There is such a thing as living apart from or above the influence: men who make the choice not to force women, and women who think explicit consent who think men begging for sex are weak and stupid and beneath them.

If a man or woman says “I love you,” they will be physically attracted to you. If any person wants to express themselves physically, they can always move slowly enough to both show their intentions and give the other person an out. If two people have hands under the other person’s clothes and clothes are coming off, consent is pretty much given.


I am not sure how to respond to this. Are you saying to just not worry about it because any guy could just say that he has "good sense", and he will know if the other person is into it? The thing is that there is a lot of proof that a lot of people don't know whether the other person is into something, and might be scared, in shock and not just playing a bit hard to get.

Look, I am not saying that there cannot be cases that a woman is sending non-verbal signals and just wants a big strong man to take her. But I am saying that there is good chances that it is not the case, that the best she can do is try to hint that she should leave, but the guy tells her to stay keeps on pushing the situation without asking if it is what she wants. Making out with someone is not saying you want to be penetrated, even if they consented to the making out they can then find themselves intimidated into things they didn't want, so we should normalise making sure.

Not being too afraid to ask if your partner is down that they might back out, is not weakness. In terms of strength, most people find confidence attractive, and it being distinct from arrogance. Be confident that you have something to offer, and that you are not afraid of missing out if you made sure to ask and get an answer after every new boundary crossed, because you value their autonomy.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

02 Aug 2021, 6:00 am

Bradleigh wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Or men and women with good sense can just go on having sex and ignore ridiculous, unreasonable standards. There is such a thing as living apart from or above the influence: men who make the choice not to force women, and women who think explicit consent who think men begging for sex are weak and stupid and beneath them.

If a man or woman says “I love you,” they will be physically attracted to you. If any person wants to express themselves physically, they can always move slowly enough to both show their intentions and give the other person an out. If two people have hands under the other person’s clothes and clothes are coming off, consent is pretty much given.


I am not sure how to respond to this. Are you saying to just not worry about it because any guy could just say that he has "good sense", and he will know if the other person is into it? The thing is that there is a lot of proof that a lot of people don't know whether the other person is into something, and might be scared, in shock and not just playing a bit hard to get.

Look, I am not saying that there cannot be cases that a woman is sending non-verbal signals and just wants a big strong man to take her. But I am saying that there is good chances that it is not the case, that the best she can do is try to hint that she should leave, but the guy tells her to stay keeps on pushing the situation without asking if it is what she wants. Making out with someone is not saying you want to be penetrated, even if they consented to the making out they can then find themselves intimidated into things they didn't want, so we should normalise making sure.

Not being too afraid to ask if your partner is down that they might back out, is not weakness. In terms of strength, most people find confidence attractive, and it being distinct from arrogance. Be confident that you have something to offer, and that you are not afraid of missing out if you made sure to ask and get an answer after every new boundary crossed, because you value their autonomy.

What I am saying is that there are adults who choose to behave as adults and don’t feel the need to play stupid games or become triggered. As to my present, right-wing, “sad,” condition, my wife and I have a kind of ritual before sex. I initiate by scratching and rubbing her back. I have to pull her shirt up to do that. When I rub her shoulders, I have to slip her shirt just past her shoulder. This will go on for some 10 to 15 minutes. If she takes her shirt off, she wants sex. The usual foreplay (I’ll spare you the TMI) follows along with the rest of it. I never ask for sex. She knows me well enough to know I’m up for it any time, anywhere, and she can reasonably assume what I want. So now that all the BS is out of the way, she can either take her clothes off or not, or let me undress her or not, either way. If it’s not a good time for sex, she lets me know and I respect that. Sometimes a back rub just needs to be a back rub.

Before we got engaged, I tended to date girls who, like me, preferred to cut the BS. Of course there was a fair amount of game-playing that went on with some of these. That’s just fun, builds anticipation, and tests just how serious we are about our relationship. But they were never the kind of women who’d keep me looking over my shoulder. What is so difficult about about trustworthy people only dating other trustworthy people? The only people who ever needed to be worried about me were other men who didn’t treat their gf’s very well.

On that note…I had some close calls. One guy threatened to kill me. The gf and I called the cops on him. Then I got her pregnant. I’m STILL laughing about that one. Another girl used me as an alibi WITHOUT TELLING ME when one night her fiancé showed up at my door looking for her. I was kinda confused until I thought about why she’d lead him straight to me, and then I thought, oh, crap, he’s not gonna hurt her, is he? Turns out I was worried over nothing, but still… At least I’d had the presence of mind to end things between us some weeks before that incident, else he might have caught me tutoring her in more than music theory. The story behind THAT was she told him I was her theory tutor so she could see me. The problem was she’d already passed all her theory courses by the previous school year before we even met. By that point I’d lost interest in pursuing women who were already IAR. I’d become smitten by a beautiful, young, brilliant pianist who was a bit more on my intellectual level. I don’t claim to have been a consistently moral person. I experienced a lot of abuse in a prior relationship that seriously messed me up. Part of what I was going through was a matter of healing from that, which meant I ended up in the company of women who felt trapped in horrible relationships. The engaged girl I mentioned ended up turning her relationship around and had nothing but good things to say about her fiancé. Sadly, after earning his MBA he decided to focus on his career in his mom’s basement and just like that she was a free woman.

The girl I got pregnant is my wife. My oldest is almost taller than me and resembles my father in law a little too much, and my oldest daughter is said to be a better saxophone player in 7th grade than any other sax player at that school in recent memory. We recently had our 4th baby, a girl who is nearly a year old now, who pulls on my shirt at the dinner table so she can pat me on the head. And yes, I say “got pregnant” somewhat tongue in cheek. It was years later and after we got married. We still enjoy a vigorous sex life, we are in our 40’s, and she STILL wants another baby. Go figure. :lol:



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,608
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

02 Aug 2021, 7:14 am

Bradleigh wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Minors absolutely CAN and DO give consent. Don’t confuse what is legally ALLOWED and what is real-life, actually POSSIBLE. There is a difference.


I'm sorry, but this is a really regressive frame of mind. Minors cannot give consent to have sex with adults. Perhaps a minor might think that they can, but the circumstance is too open to power imbalance and manipulation. And yet, I might be willing to give that a minor can consent to having sex with another minor, of course within certain bounds, such as an 17 year old should not be with an 11 year old.

But that also has absolutely nothing to do with what their parent thinks, not between a minor with an adult, and not between two minors of the same level of maturity. Of course, a parent always could set rules that as long as they live in the house they not do things, but the idea of parents being the arbiters of consent of their child, just feels gross. I also say this in regards to the likes of sex education, that the hard boiled choice to deny it with only abstinence only, really doesn't do any favours.

Children (teenagers) are not just extensions of their parents will, that get to decide whether they consent, or the other things you said about an enforced moral code and forcing them to go to church. Especially in regards to some churches can be pretty much torture/child abuse, and I would consider it such where a parent might decide to send their gay kid to a conversion camp, because the parent decides if their son gets to have a boyfriend.

And again, to repeat, a child cannot consent to have sex with an adult, regardless if their parents agreed to it.

Sex education, whether it’s abstinence only or otherwise, is irrelevant here. Parents have the prerogative to raise their children as they like. Even if it means sending gay kids to conversion camp, they have that right. BTW, do they even still have those? Effectiveness is questionable and some have been known to be abusive even by my standards. It’s not that you can’t have effective Christian counseling for unwanted same-sex attraction, but I’m not sure if a systematic “conversion camp” is even legal. But yeah…I mean, parents have that right. Consent laws are not meant to protect children. They are meant to give parents legal teeth to protect their own, and I gave examples of how this plays out in real life. I’ll give another one.

A band director had been giving private lessons when things went a different direction. The girl actually bragged to her friends about how she was different and how she was going to be the one who marries her band director. The B.D. decides suddenly he wants to “do the right thing” and stop cheating on his wife and be a good example for his own kids. He was going to discontinue lessons entirely. She convinced him to have one more “lesson.” Afterwards she went straight to the hospital, got a rape kit, and the B.D. ended up in prison. Stories like that make my blood run cold because, YES, the girl DID consent to it and even planned out what she was going to do. It’s crazy because due process isn’t applied in these cases like in others, and all it takes is an accusation to ruin your life. Teenagers really do possess a tremendous level of power over us. They are well aware of that, too. So I have a few personal rules I follow. First, I’m never alone with a single student. Second, I make a point of never being seen alone. I’ve seen my share of psychotic kids, I know what they’re capable of, and I know that being visible out in the open makes it difficult for psychotic kids to make credible accusations. It sucks being in a profession where you have a target on your back, but as long as you keep your hands off kids and not do anything stupid, you’re pretty much going to be ok.

Oh…and who said consent had to be with an adult? I remember being in 6th and 7th grade there were a couple of girls who I’d sneak off with and make out either my age or not much younger. I didn’t have sex until I was 19, but I was somewhat precocious when I was younger. Growing up in the country back in the 80’s gave me enough opportunity to explore and experiment, and there were younger girls than me who were already sexually active. I was young enough the first time I pulled my gf’s shirt up there wasn’t anything to see. We were…what, how old? Somewhere in the 10-12 years old range? Something like that. And she knew a heck of a lot more what she was doing than I did. At that point in time I was plenty ok with it. In retrospect, I wish I’d made wiser choices, but it’s nowhere on my list of regrets. She didn’t mind the little bit of fooling around we did and would have gone further if I’d wanted to.

That whole “consent” thing only exists in the law books. I arguably grew up in a tougher place and time than you, I suppose. But as a teacher I’ve worked in some pretty rough places, too. I had a 7th grade music student who I had to make accommodations for because she was pregnant. When I took my next public school job in a nicer district, I saw…as in I WAS THERE SAW with MY OWN EYES…a 7th grade girl nearly pass out in the hallway from bleeding because she was suffering a miscarriage. As in I was there, saw the blood, and saw the paramedics come get her. These were not from adults. These were kids close in age having sex under the legal age of consent. If you say that they cannot consent, then what you’re saying is that these girls having babies or miscarriages never actually existed despite the whole school knowing who they were, or you are saying that the girls are ALSO guilty of rape since young boys can’t consent, either. Now which is it? Do we round up all the little boys and girls having sex and keep them in the detention center?

I’m really hoping you can see how your conception of consent is absurd. There is actually a valid rationale for having age of consent laws on the books and enforcing them. It has nothing to do with whether a person can ACTUALLY consent. They can, and they do.

As far as parental prerogative goes, yes, I do choose to raise my kids along strict standards, including and not limited to sexuality. The purpose is to keep them safe and to instill my moral and religious values in them. I will not allow dating, and my kids understand why (chaperones school dances/prom, fine, group “dates,” fine. Alone at someone else’s house? NO). My oldest is ok with that. Too many bad experiences with psychotic girls in elementary school. My oldest daughter has the smartest approach: don’t talk about it around dad. I’m well aware that she has crushes and hopes to reunite with one boy in particular one day. We’ve sat down together and had the reality talk about it, that when they leave this house and our parental care, they can run wild, drink, smoke pot, and have sex all they want and dad can’t do anything about it. I’m raising them the way I am HOPING some of it will stick and that they’ll be a better human being than I ever was. My oldest son is the only one old enough to start hating me for it, the others are too young to really care. But I remind him that no matter how he feels about me, I only get him for four more years. We all have a very positive, close relationship which I believe will continue long after they cease being our dependents. We have fun. We go for walks, eat dinner together every night, socialize at church and community activities, watch movies, play video games. It’s not an iron fist kind of thing. But it’s not like they aren’t kids who sometimes do stupid things. Some mistakes they are allowed to learn from. Other mistakes shouldn’t have to be made in the first place. So if my parenting style is occasionally a headache for them and they end up growing up safely and successful, I’ll consider my life fulfilled.